Kernos

Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion

grecque antique
20 | 2007
Varia

The importance of sacrifice: new approaches to

old methods

Gunnel Ekroth

Publisher
Centre international d'étude de la religion
grecque antique
Electronic version
URL: http://kernos.revues.org/204 Printed version
ISSN: 2034-7871 Date of publication: 1 janvier 2007
ISSN: 0776-3824

Electronic reference
Gunnel Ekroth, « The importance of sacrifice: new approaches to old methods », Kernos [Online],
20 | 2007, Online since 10 February 2011, connection on 30 September 2016. URL : http://
kernos.revues.org/204

The text is a facsimile of the print edition.

Kernos
Kernos
20
(2007),
p.
387-469.

Revue des Livres




. Compte rendu critique


The importance of sacrifice: new approaches to old methods*
by
Gunnel
EKROTH

The
study
of
sacrifice
in
antiquity
has
recently
been
enriched
by
two
important
contribu-
tions
in
the
form
of
the
acta
of
conferences,
one
organized
at
Göteborg
in
1997
and
the

other
in
Paris
in
2001.
The
scope
and
aims
of
these
two
events
were
highly
different.
The

Göteborg
seminar
focused
specifically
on
the
Olympian
and
chthonian
aspects
of
Greek

sacrificial
ritual,
while
the
Paris
conference
aimed
at
evaluating
and
broadening
the
work

presented
in
the
seminal
study
La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec,
published
in
1979.1

Olympian and chthonian

Greek sacrificial ritual. Olympian and chthonian
is
the
sixth
of
the
seminars
on
ancient
Greek

cult
organized
by
Robin
Hägg,
first
at
the
Swedish
Institute
in
Athens
and
later
at
Göteborg,

in
order
to
discuss
a
specific
category
of
evidence
or
aspect
of
Greek
cult
such
as
iconogra-
phy,
epigraphy,
the
early
Greek
polis
or
hero-cults.2
The
present
volume
is
introduced
by
a

brief
preface
in
which
Robin
Hägg
presents
the
idea
of
the
seminar
as
being
a
cross-
disciplinary
conference
where
the
Olympian-chthonian
issue
is
to
be
addressed
by
scholars

with
diverging
points
of
view,
by
diverse
methods
and
on
the
basis
of
archaeological,

iconographical,
literary
and
epigraphical
evidence.

*
Review
article
concerning
the
two
following
books:
Robin
HÄGG,
Brita
ALROTH
(eds.),
Greek Sacrificial

Ritual, Olympian and Chthonian.
Proceedings of the Sixth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the
Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Göteborg University, 25-27 April 1997,
Stockholm,
Åströms

Förlag,
2005.
1
vol.
16,5
×
24
cm,
230
p.
(Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae,
Series
in-8°,
18).
ISBN
:
91-
7916-049-2,
and
Stella
GEORGOUDI,
Renée
KOCH
PIETTRE,
Francis
SCHMIDT
(sous
la
direction
de),
La
cuisine et l’autel. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne,
Turnhout,
Brepols,
2005.
1
vol.

15,5
×
24
cm,
XVII+460
p.
(Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études – Sciences religieuses,
124).
ISBN
:
2-503-
51739-0.


1
M.
DETIENNE,
J.-P.
VERNANT
et
al.,
La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec,
Paris
1979.
Translated
into
English

by
P.
WISSING,
The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks,
Chicago
&
London
1989.

2
The
previous
volumes
in
the
series
include
R.
HÄGG
(ed.),
The iconography of Greek cult in the Archaic and

Classical periods,
Athens
&
Liège,
1992
(Kernos,
suppl.
1);
R.
HÄGG
(ed.),
Ancient Greek cult practice from the
epigraphical evidence. Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on ancient Greek cult, organized by the Swedish Institute
at Athens, 22-24 November 1991,
Stockholm,
1994
(ActaAth-8°,
13);
R.
HÄGG
(ed.),
The role of religion in the early
Greek polis. Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on ancient Greek cult, organized by the Swedish Institute at
Athens, 16-18 October 1992,
Stockholm,
1996
(ActaAth-8°,
14);
R.
HÄGG
(ed.),
Ancient Greek cult-practice from the
archaeological evidence. Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on ancient Greek cult, organized by the Swedish
Institute at Athens, 22-24 October 1993,
Stockholm,
1998
(ActaAth-8°,
15);
R.
HÄGG
(ed.),
Ancient Greek hero cult.
Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on ancient Greek cult, organized by the Department of Classical Archaeology and
Ancient History, Göteborg university, 21-23 April 1995,
Stockholm,
1999
(ActaAth-8°,
16).
The
latest
volume,
The
Child in Ancient Greek Cult. Proceedings of the Seventh International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Göteborg University,
16-18 April 1999,
is
under
preparation.

388
Revue
des
Livres

Time
was
certainly
ripe
for
a
seminar
on
this
topic.
Already
in
1965
Michael
Jameson

suggested
that
the
polar
opposition
between
Olympian
and
chthonian
rituals
was
better

replaced
by
dividing
sacrifices
into
a
normal
type
of
sacrifice,
thysia,
and
a
variety
of

‘powerful
actions’,
which
could
be
used
to
modify,
colour
or
even
replace
the
thysia

depending
on
the
purpose
and
context
of
the
rite.3
Similar
concerns
over
the
usefulness
of

the
Olympian
and
chthonian
categories
have
since
been
expressed
by
other
scholars
as

well.4
The
severest
criticism
was
put
forward
in
1992,
when
Renate
Schlesier
(present
in
the

audience
at
the
Göteborg
seminar)
argued
that
the
Olympian/chthonian
distinction
is

foremost
a
modern,
academic
construct
with
little
support
in
the
ancient
evidence.5

However,
the
validity
of
the
Olympian
and
chthonian
aspects
for
the
understanding
of

Greek
cult
has
recently
also
been
forcefully
defended
by
Scott
Scullion.6

The
present
volume
contains
14
papers
which
approach
the
Olympian
and
chthonian

issue
from
a
theoretical
point
of
view
or
by
focusing
on
a
particular
kind
of
ritual
or

evidence
which
has
been
regarded
as
central
in
expressing
the
characteristics
of
these
two

categories.7
Four
contributions
only
appear
as
abstracts:
Bernard
Dietrich
addressed
the

question
of
sacrificial
ritual
and
its
meaning
in
the
Bronze
Age
versus
the
Iron
Age,
Fritz

Graf
the
ritual
distinctions
between
magical
sacrifice
and
ordinary,
communal
sacrifices,

David
Reese
provided
a
survey
of
faunal
remains
from
Greek
sanctuaries
and
Folkert
van

Straten
discussed
the
iconographical
evidence
for
priests
(surprisingly
slight)
and
their
role

in
Greek
sacrifice.
The
book
also
contains
an
overview
of
the
programme
of
the
confer-
ence,
a
list
of
the
participants
as
well
as
indexes
of
names,
literary
sources,
and
inscriptions

and
papyri
used.

The
volume
ends
with
a
very
short
final
discussion,
which
unfortunately
does
not

replace
the
concluding
chapter
one
would
have
wished
for
here,
outlining
evidence
and

methods
in
dealing
with
the
Olympian
and
chthonian
model
and
its
validity.
It
is
now
up
to

the
reader
to
construct
his
or
her
own
conclusions
from
the
contents
of
the
papers,
as
well

as
from
the
discussion
following
each
contribution,
which,
in
accordance
with
the
tradition

of
the
conferences
and
seminars
at
the
Swedish
Institute
at
Athens,
has
been
recorded
and

printed.
In
fact,
the
discussion
reflects
very
well
the
complexities
of
how
to
understand
and

make
use
of
the
categories
Olympian
and
chthonian.

To retain, discard or modify?

The
volume
offers
a
welcome
first
organised
attempt
to
grapple
with
the
difficulties
in

applying
the
concepts
Olympian
and
chthonian,
though
it
is
evident
that
a
model
used

within
the
study
of
Greek
sacrifice
for
more
than
150
years
is
not
replaced
easily
and
the

3
M.
JAMESON,
‘Notes
on
the
sacrificial
calendar
from
Erchia’,
BCH
89
(1965),
p.
162-163.
For
the

concept
‘powerful
actions’,
modelled
on
Nock’s
Heilige Handlungen,
see
A.D.
NOCK,
‘The
cult
of
heroes’,

HThR
37
(1944),
p.
141-173.
See
also
G.
EKROTH,
The sacrificial rituals of Greek hero-cults in the Archaic to the early
Hellenistic periods,
Liège,
2002
(Kernos,
suppl.
12),
p.
310-330.


4
F.T.
VAN
STRATEN,
Hierà
kalá. Images of animal sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece,
Leiden,
1995

(RGRW,
127),
p.
165-167;
A.
VERBANCK-PIERARD,
‘Les
héros
guérisseurs
:
des
dieux
comme
les
autres
!’,
in

V.
PIRENNE-DELFORGE
&
E.
SUAREZ
DE
LA
TORRE
(eds.),
Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs. Actes
du Colloque organisé à l’Université de Valladolid du 26 au 29 mai 1999,
Liège,
2000
(Kernos,
suppl.
10),
p.
283-284.


5
R.
SCHLESIER,
‘Olympian
versus
Chthonian
religion’,
SCI
11
(1991-92),
p.
38-51.

6
S.
SCULLION,
‘Olympian
and
chthonian’,
ClAnt
13
(1994),
p.
75-119;
cf.
idem,
‘Three
notes
on
Attic

sacrificial
calendars’,
ZPE
121
(1998),
p.
116-122;
idem,
‘Heroic
and
chthonian
sacrifice:
new
evidence
from

Selinous’,
ZPE
132
(2000),
p.
163-171.

7
A
list
of
the
papers
has
been
given
in
Kernos
19
(2006),
p.
514.


Revue
des
Livres
389

idea
of
replacing
it
certainly
creates
both
confusion
and
anxiety.8
As
is
rightly
pointed
out
by

many
of
the
contributors
and
the
discussants,
the
debate
has
just
been
opened.


It
is
interesting
to
note
that
most
of
the
scholars
participating
still
believe
in
the
value
of

the
Olympian-chthonian
model
for
the
understanding
of
Greek
sacrificial
ritual.9
Scott

Scullion
most
clearly
advocates
the
validity
of
the
distinction,
though
with
a
greater
degree

of
elasticity.
His
contribution
constitutes
an
intricate
argument
in
favour
of
the
use
of
the

Olympian-chthonian
model,
although
in
a
modified
form,
in
accordance
with
the
views
he

presented
in
an
important
paper
in
1994.10
It
is
argued
that
Zeus
Soter,
who
is
prominent
in

Aischylos’
Oresteia,
is
to
be
seen
as
one
example
of
many
Doppelwesen
belonging
to
both
the

Olympian
and
chthonian
spheres.
Furthermore,
this
view
of
the
Olympian/chthonian

mixture
as
portrayed
in
tragedy
can
be
linked
to
real
cult
as
well
and
especially
the
rituals

outlined
in
the lex sacra
form
Selinous.


Scullion’s
modification
of
the
model
constitutes
one
way
of
demonstrating
its
applicabil-
ity
by
taking
into
account
the
variability
of
the
evidence
and
adapting
the
theoretical

approach
accordingly.
Still,
from
the
discussion
following
this
paper,
as
well
as
others
in
the

volume,
it
is
evident
that
there
is
also
a
need
to
ascertain
how
far
it
is
possible
to
argue
for
a

middle
ground,
different
from
the
traditionally
more
strict
belief
in
the
division
of
Greek

religion
into
an
Olympian
and
a
chthonian
sphere,
respectively,
without
invalidating
the

individual
and
original
distinction.11

An
alternative
approach
to
modification
is
to
focus
on
other
division
and
classification

systems
of
sacrificial
rituals
and
divinities
which
are
to
be
found
in
the
ancient
evidence,

apart
from
the
Olympian
and
chthonian
one.
Albert
Henrichs’
contribution,
“‘Sacrifice
as
to

the
immortals’.
Modern
classifications
of
animal
sacrifice
and
ritual
distinctions
in
the
lex
sacra
from
Selinous”,
stresses
the
need
for
a
discussion
and
revision
of
our
modern
notion

of
sacrificial
categories,
as
well
as
the
ancient
basis
for
these
conceptions.
The
binary

opposition
of
sacrificial
rituals
in
the
Selinous
inscription
is
taken
as
a
test
case
for
exploring

the
value
of
distinctions
such
as
Olympian/chthonian
or
divine/heroic,
asking
what
will
be

gained
by
replacing
one
set
of
terms
with
another.
Also
Robert
Parker
(‘ὡς
ἥρωι
ἐναγίζειν’)

points
out
that
an
important
distinction
in
Greek
religion
was
between
immortals
and

heroes,
a
division
which
is
not
identical
with
that
between
Olympians
and
chthonians.
He

approaches
the
issue
from
the
sacrificial
terminology,
in
particular
the
term
enagizein,
usually

considered
as
specific
for
the
sacrifices
to
heroes,
and
further
tries
to
identify
various
ways

in
which
heroic
sacrifice
differed
from
divine
sacrifice.12
A
similar
line
of
argument
is

presented
by
Jan
Bremmer,
exploring
the
evidence
for
pregnant
animals.
Such
victims
were
























































8
For
the
origins
of
the
distinction
between
Olympian
and
chthonian,
see
F.
CREUZER,
Symbolik und

Mythologie der alten Völker bersonders der Griechen3,
vol.
3,
Leipzig
&
Darmstadt,
1842
(Deutsche Schriften, neue und
verbesserte,
1:3);
K.F.
HERMANN,
Lehrbuch der gottesdienstlichen Alterthümer der Griechen,
vol.
2.
Die gottesdienstlichen
Alterthümer,
Heidelberg,
1846;
see
also
SCHLESIER,
l.c.
(n.
5).

9
Three
papers
do
not
address
the
Olympian-chthonian
issue
directly:
Charlotte
WIKANDER,
‘The

practicalities
of
ruler
cult’,
who
studies
the
veneration
of
Hellenistic
rulers
in
the
epigraphical
evidence,

demonstrating
that
the
honours
conveyed
to
these
individuals
could
easily
be
fitted
into
the
established
cultic

patterns
of
the
Greek
poleis;
Nanno
MARINATOS,
‘Symbolic
forms
of
sacrificial
imagery
in
the
eastern

Mediterranean’,
discussing
the
mentality
of
sacrificial
killing
in
Minoan,
Egyptian
and
Mesopotamian

iconography;
Claude
CALAME,
‘Heracles,
animal
and
sacrificial
victim
in
Sophocles’
Trachiniae’
focusing
on

the
nature
of
Herakles’
death
as
represented
in
Sophocles’
play,
arguing
that
Sophocles
especially
constructed

the
hero’s
death
to
fit
the
stage.

10
See
SCULLION,
l.c.
(n.
6).

11
See,
for
example,
the
remarks
by
Renate
SCHLESIER,
p.
35.

12
The
sacrificial
rituals
of
Greek
hero-cults,
including
the
evidence
for
the
use
and
meaning
of
the
term

enagizein,
has
now
been
analyzed
in
EKROTH,
o.c.
(n.
3),
who
argues
that
the
rituals
of
hero-cults
were
the

same
as
those
for
the
gods
apart
from
a
small
number
of
occasions.

390
Revue
des
Livres

mainly
sacrificed
to
goddesses
with
cults
and
status
which
somehow
can
be
said
to
be

different
from
‘normal’,
anthropomorphic
gods,
or
in
rituals
marking
the
transition
between

youth
and
adulthood.
Instead
of
classifying
these
sacrifices
as
chthonian,
as
has
frequently

been
done,
Bremmer
explains
them
as
distinct
from
other
rituals
by
having
‘negative’

connotations
(the
meaning
of
‘negative’
is
unfortunately
not
defined
by
Bremmer).13

Henrichs
and
Parker
are
concerned
with
the
central
question
to
what
extent
our
modern

terminology
has
to
depend
on
the
ancient
one
and
whether
Olympian/chthonian
is
better

replaced
by
divine/heroic
or
immortal/mortal,
which
has
direct
support
in
the
ancient

evidence,
or
by
positive/negative
or
marked/unmarked,
which
are
modern
interpretations

and
denominations
of
the
binary
divisions
encountered
in
the
ancient
evidence.
It
has
to
be

remembered
that
while
chthonian
gods
and
beings
can
be
identified
both
as
an
ancient
and

a
modern
notion,
the
criteria
for
what
constitutes
chthonian
rituals
are
harder
to
grasp,
since

they
do
not
depend
on
any
ancient
usage.

The
only
paper
which
openly
questions
the
validity
of
using
the
Olympian/chthonian

designations
is
by
Kevin
Clinton,
who
investigates
the
great
variety
of
ritual
uses
of
pigs
and

piglets
in
the
literary
and
epigraphical
evidence,
many
of
which
have
been
labelled
chthonian

due
to
the
connections
between
pigs
and
the
earth.
Clinton
emphasizes
the
distinctions
in

the
meaning
of
‘chthonian’
and
the
importance
of
keeping
apart
the
two
senses
of
this
term,

on
the
one
hand,
as
connected
with
living
earth
and
fertility
gods
and,
on
the
other,
as

linked
to
the
underworld
and
the
realm
of
the
dead.14
He
argues
that
the
modern
application

of
‘chthonian’
is
of
little
use
when
explaining
rituals
involving
pigs
apart
from
the
deposition

of
piglets
at
the
Thesmophoria
and
sacrifices
of
pregnant
sows,
and
then
only
in
the
sense

of
involving
agrarian
fertility.15
Another
difficulty
with
the
application
of
Olympian
and

chthonian
as
strictly
distinct
categories
is
brought
out
by
Christoph
Auffarth,
namely
how

traditions
of
correct
Olympian
or
chthonian
sacrificial
practices
could
have
been
handed

down
and
upheld
in
a
society
where
there
were
no
professional
priestly
caste
or
fixed

written
prescriptions.
He
concludes
that
there
seems
to
have
been
no
compulsion
for
a

formalistic
application
of
Olympian
or
chthonian
rituals,
rather
there
was
an
urge
to
keep

within
‘normality’,
as
opposed
to
the
discourse
on
deviating
sacrifices
found
within
myth.

It
is
evident
that
the
Olympian-chthonian
model
is
based
almost
exclusively
on
literary

texts.
The
papers
addressing
epigraphy,
archaeology
and
osteology
are
therefore
particularly

interesting.
In
the
light
of
the
Selinous
lex sacra,
Birgitta
Bergquist
retracts
her
previous

interpretation
of
the
term
ἐνατεύειν,
now
suggesting
that
it
has
to
refer
to
the
burning
of
a

ninth
of
the
sacrificial
victim.
The
two
attested
cases
of
this
ritual
on
Thasos,
both
for

Herakles,
are
to
be
understood
as
prohibiting
such
sacrifices,
thus
resulting
in
the
rituals
for

this
divinity
being
taken
as
regular
thysia
sacrifices
at
which
all
of
the
meat
could
be
eaten.

Bergquist’s
new
interpretation
in
fact
removes
the
evidence
for
a
chthonian
cult
of
Herakles

on
this
island.16
Carla
Antonaccio’s
article
(‘Dedications
and
the
character
of
cult’)

13
Bremmer’s
interpretation
(p.
158)
of
νῶτογ
κόπτετα[ι]
τῆς
ἐγκύµονος
(LSCG
96,
11-13)
as
meaning
‘the

back
of
the
pregnant
sow
having
to
be
broken’
seems
unwarranted.
This
stipulation
more
likely
refers
to
the

good
meat
along
the
back
of
the
victim
being
cut
out
in
one
piece
and
used
for
ritual
and
honorary
purposes.

14
See
also
K.
CLINTON,
Myth and cult. The iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries. The Martin P. Nilsson lectures

on Greek religion, delivered 19-21 November 1990 at the Swedish Institute at Athens,
Stockholm,
1992
(ActaAth-8°,
11),

p.
61,
esp.
n.
189;
idem,
‘A
new
lex sacra
from
Selinous:
kindly
Zeuses,
Eumenides,
impure
and
pure

Tritopatores,
and
elasteroi’,
CPh
91
(1996),
p.
168-169,
with
n.
36
and
n.
39.


15
Among
the
many
interesting
points
made
in
Clinton’s
paper
is
also
the
fact
that
the
purification
by

piglets
was
not
only
accomplished
by
the
piglet’s
blood
but
most
of
all
by
burning
its
body
in
a
holocaust.

16
This
is
in
line
with
recent
work
on
the
cult
and
nature
of
Herakles,
relegating
the
chthonian
side

primarily
to
myth,
see
A.
VERBANCK-PIÉRARD,
‘Le
double
culte
d’Héraklès
:
légende
ou
réalité
?’,
in
A.-F.


Revue
des
Livres
391

investigates
the
offerings
at
the
sanctuary
of
Helen
and
Menelaos
at
Therapne,
Lakonia,
in

order
to
see
whether
they
were
used
to
construct
a
chthonian
aspect
of
this
cult.
Not

surprisingly,
the
rich
variety
of
votives,
especially
the
small
lead
miniatures,
are
very
difficult

to
match
to
either
Olympian
or
chthonian
recipients
or
rituals.


One
of
the
most
interesting
papers
of
the
volume
is
Elizabeth
Gebhard’s
and
David

Reese’s
study
‘Sacrifices
for
Poseidon
and
Melikertes-Palaimon
at
Isthmia’,
discussing
the

osteological
evidence
from
this
sanctuary.
The
Archaic-Classical
deposits
at
the
Long
Altar

contained
heavily
burned
bones,
among
which
thighbones
were
especially
prominent,
but

also
other
parts
of
the
animal
were
apparently
burnt.
Unburnt
bones
come
from
a
large

reservoir
to
the
south-west
of
the
temple,
where
the
dining
must
have
taken
place
during

the
same
periods.
Three
pits
in
the
precincts
of
the
hero
Melikertes-Palaimon
were
filled

with
the
remains
of
holocausts
of
cattle,
a
ritual
corresponding
to
the
traditional
notion
of
a

chthonian
hero-cult.
However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
these
remains
date
to
the
mid-1st

to
early
3rd
centuries
AD
and
might
in
fact
constitute
a
change
in
cult
practice
when
the
cult

of
this
hero
was
reintroduced
after
the
Roman
re-settlement
of
Corinth.17
The
papers
by

Bergquist,
Antonaccio
and
Gebhard/Reese
clearly
illustrate
that
the
information
we

encounter
in
the
literary
sources
needs
to
be
confronted
with
other
kinds
of
evidence
of

Greek
ritual
practices
and
that
the
disparities
definitely
should
be
explored.
The
fact
that
the

Olympian
and
chthonian
categories
are
difficult
to
identify
outside
a
small
number
of

literary
sources
raises
the
question
if
this
distinction
is
valid
for
Greek
religion
at
large.

The
volume
also
reveals
the
extent
to
which
modern
preconceived
notions
of
the

existence
of
Olympian
and
chthonian
categories
and
of
what
is
covered
by
each
of
these

often
direct
the
interpretations
of
the
evidence.
For
example,
when
discussing
sacrifices
at

which
the
victims
were
plunged
into
water,
Noel
Robertson
presupposes
the
ritual
to
go

back
to
Mycenaean
times
(without
providing
any
specific
evidence)
and
originally
to
have

functioned
as
a
kind
of
sympathetic
magic.
Later
the
practice
became
assimilated
to
both

Olympian
and
chthonian
sacrifices
depending
on
the
emphasis
of
ritual
details
such
as

libation,
blood-letting
or
the
scattering
of
parts
of
the
victim.
Olympian
and
chthonian
are

here
taken
as
self-evident
and
clear-cut
categories
with
no
further
need
for
definition
or

reflection.
The
effect
of
the
modern
notions
are
also
illustrated
by
Dennis
Hughes’
well-
argued
and
clear
study
‘Sacrifice
and
the
cult
of
the
dead
in
ancient
Argos’,
which
explores

the
funerary
rituals
at
Argos
as
outlined
in
Plutarch’s
24th
Greek Question.
Previous

commentators
on
this
passage
have
found
it
difficult
that
a
sacrifice
to
Apollo
is
said
to

follow
the
funeral
and
have
therefore
postulated
a
chthonian
divinity
instead
of
the

Olympian
god.
Hughes
shows
that
the
polluted
state
of
the
family
was
ended
by
a
sacrifice

to
Apollo
Lykeios
after
which
new
fire
and
meat
(enknisma)
were
brought
to
the
house
from

the
god’s
sanctuary,
a
ritual
sequence
in
which
a
sacrifice
to
Apollo
makes
perfect
sense
and

so
there
is
no
need
to
try
to
‘correct’
the
text.


On
the
whole,
the
book
offers
little
comprehensive
discussion
of
what
the
Olympian

and
chthonian
distinction
is
to
be
based
on:
the
actual
rituals,
the
character
of
the
divinity
or

the
occasion
when
the
sacrifice
was
performed,
and
how
we
can
actually
define
and

apprehend
Olympian
and
chthonian
in
the
ancient
evidence.
Though
the
contributors

display
a
will
to
distance
themselves
from
the
old
and
traditional
terminology
and
its

applications,
many
central
aspects
of
the
conventional
use
of
Olympian
and,
in
particular,
of

LAURENS (ed.),
Entre hommes et dieux. Le convive, le héros, le prophète,
Paris,
1989
(Lire les polythéismes,
2
=
Centre de
recherches d’histoire ancienne,
86),
p.
43-65.

17
For
the
changes
in
the
Roman
cult
of
Palaimon,
see
M.
PIÉRART,
‘Panthéon
et
hellénisation
dans
la

colonie
romaine
de
Corinthe
:
la
«
redécouverte
»
du
culte
de
Palaimon
à
l’Isthme’,
Kernos
11
(1998),
p.
85-
109;
EKROTH,
o.c.
(n.
3),
p.
80-82.

392
Revue
des
Livres

chthonian
are
taken
for
granted
and
used.
A
scrutiny,
in
detail,
would
be
needed
of
whether

features
such
as
nightly
sacrifices,
black
victims,
outpourings
of
blood,
ritual
terms
such
as

choai,
the
burning
of
meat
and
the
bending
of
the
victim’s
head
towards
the
ground
really

can
be
regarded
as
‘chthonian’
or
if
they
are
unfounded
assumptions.18



In
conclusion,
any
die-hard
Olympian-chthonian
adherents
à la Paul Stengel
are
not
likely

to
surface
anymore.19
Though
the
papers
presented
here
do
not
venture
as
far
as
asking
for

a
discarding
of
the
model,
the
outcome
is
that
they
at
least
call
for
a
definition
of
what
is

covered
by
Olympian
and
chthonian
and
how
these
categories
can
be
used.
Hopefully,
this

interesting
study
will
result
in
the
model
no
longer
being
taken
for
granted
when
studying

Greek
sacrifice
and
each
scholar
henceforth
will
ponder
why
and
on
what
basis
the

categories
are
to
be
applied
and
to
what
extent
they
might
help
to
clarify
the
ancient

evidence.

Kitchen and altar

The
second
volume
discussed
here,
La cuisine et l’autel,
grew
out
of
a
series
of
seminars

culminating
with
a
table ronde
organized
in
Paris
in
2001
at
the
École
Pratique
des
Hautes

Études.
The
inspiration
of
the
book
is
to
be
found
in
La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec,

published
in
1979
under
the
aegis
of
Marcel
Detienne
and
Jean-Pierre
Vernant.
In
the

extensive
introduction,
Stella
Georgoudi,
Renée
Koch
Piettre
and
Francis
Schmidt
state
that

La cuisine et l’autel
aims
at
testing
the
validity
of
the
conclusions
put
forward
in
that
very

important
volume,
many
of
which
have
become
fundamental
for
the
scholarship
on
Greek

sacrifices,
but
also
at
reconsidering
and
re-examining
the
field
of
sacrifice
by
posing
new

questions
and
widening
the
scope
geographically
and
chronologically
to
include
also
Egypt,

ancient
Israel
and
the
Roman
world
to
allow
for
comparisons
to
be
made
with
the
Greek

evidence.
Not
only
alimentary
animal
sacrifice
is
dealt
with,
but
also
vegetable
offerings,

holocausts
and
purifications.
The
role
of
the
gods
within
sacrifice
is
stressed
as
well,
shifting

the
focus
from
sacrifices
exclusively.
This
wider
perspective
will
allow
the
reader
both
to

grasp
the
particularities
of
the
sacrifices
of
each
period
and
location,
and
to
discern
the

resemblances
and
differences.

The
book
contains
23
papers
organized
in
four
thematic
sections,
each
of
which
divided

into
subsections.20
The
first
deals
with
definitions
of
what
constitutes
killing,
offering
or

eating
in
a
ritual
context,
the
offerings
of
food
and
vegetables,
and
rituals
which
seem
to
fall

outside
the
traditional
boundaries
of
what
constitutes
a
sacrifice.
The
second
part
concerns

violence,
sacralization
and
elimination,
and
focuses
on
the
treatment
of
the
sacrificial
victim

and
the
regulations
surrounding
the
ritual
activity.
The
third
part
addresses
the
relations

between
gods
and
men
in
the
context
of
banqueting
and
division
of
the
offerings.
The
final

part
focuses
on
what
happens
to
sacrificial
systems
when
they
come
in
contact
with
other

cultures
and
religions,
or
drastic
changes
take
place.
The
book
ends
with
a
brief
biography

of
each
author
followed
by
indexes
of
personal
names,
general
matters
and
terms
in

Egyptian,
Hebrew,
Greek
and
Latin.

La cuisine et l’autel
offers
a
wealth
of
information
on
sacrifice
in
antiquity
which
certainly

both
broadens
and
deepens
the
work
presented
in
La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec.
The
latter

18
The
bending
down
of
the
victim’s
head
towards
the
ground
at
sacrifices
seems
rarely
to
have
been

executed
due
to
practical
difficulties
and
cannot
be
taken
as
a
‘chthonian’
trait,
see
EKROTH,
o.c.
(n.
3),
p.
269-
276.

19
See,
for
example,
P.
STENGEL,
Opferbräuche der Griechen,
Leipzig
&
Berlin,
1910,
esp.
p.
126-145;
idem,

Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer3,
Munich,
1920
(HdA,
5:3),
esp.
p.
95-153.

20
For
the
order
of
the
individual
papers,
see
the
list
in
Kernos
19
(2006),
p.
512-513.


Revue
des
Livres
393

volume
had
a
strongly
pronounced
theoretical
focus
in
its
approach
to
Greek
sacrificial

ritual
and
has
become
more
or
less
the
‘sacred
text’
for
many
scholars
working
in
this
field.

The
anthropological
approach
of
the
‘French
school’
is
now
both
widely
used
and
well-
established.21
La cuisine et l’autel
is,
however,
surprisingly
devoid
of
theoretical
issues.
Instead,

the
evidence
itself
with
all
of
its
profound
complexity
lies
at
the
centre.
The
material

focused
on
is
mainly
literary
with
some
epigraphy
and
occasional
archaeological
additions.

Iconography
as
a
source
for
cult
practice
is
addressed
by
some
of
the
contributors
but
the

scant
use
of
this
kind
of
evidence
constitutes
a
marked
difference
from
La cuisine du sacrifice
en pays grec,
in
which
the
two
chapters
by
Jean-Louis
Durand
dealing
with
Attic
vase-painting

fundamentally
increased
our
understanding
of
Greek
cult.22
Furthermore,
the
lack
of

illustrations
in
some
of
the
papers
in
La cuisine et l’autel
dealing
specifically
with
iconography

is
unfortunate.23

The
wider
chronological
and
geographical
spectrum
covered,
not
only
Archaic
and

Classical
Greek,
but
also
Roman,
Egyptian,
Hebrew
and
Christian,
is
particularly
welcome

and
serves
to
contextualize
sacrifice
in
a
manner
not
done
(or
even
desired)
in
La cuisine du
sacrifice.
This
wider
scope
has
resulted
in
several
of
the
contributions
having
the
character
of

an
overview
and
review
of
evidence
for
a
specific
kind
of
sacrifice,
sacrificial
practices
or

issues
of
scholarly
debate
within
a
particular
culture
and
a
particular
period.
This,
however,

is
far
from
negative,
since
the
volume
offers
the
reader
a
wide
range
of
information
and

therefore
stimulates
comparisons
and
reflections.


If
we
begin
with
the
thysia
sacrifice,
the
central
ritual
of
Greek
cult,
La cuisine et l’autel

offers
important
insights
highlighting
the
complexity
of
the
empirical
evidence
which

sometimes
was
overlooked
by
the
theoretical
approach
in
La cuisine du sacrifice.
Guy

Berthiaume
(‘L’aile
ou
les
mêria.
Sur
la
nourriture
carnée
des
dieux
grecs’)
focuses
on
a

concrete
aspect
of
Greek
thysia
sacrifice,
whether
only
the
bare
thighbones
would
be
burnt

or
the
entire
leg
with
the
meat
still
attached
to
it.
The
division
of
the
animal
victim
and
the

handling
of
its
bones
as
presented
in
the
Theogony
(538-541)
constituted
a
starting
point
for

Detienne’s
and
Vernant’s
interpretation
of
thysia
sacrifice.24
Since
the
term
meria
can
mean

both
thigh
and
thighbone,
Berthiaume
suggests
that
in
many
cases
the
entire,
fleshy
leg

would
be
burnt
as
the
god’s
portion,
the
choice
depending
on
the
piety
or
generosity
of
the

individual
worshipper.


Stella
Georgoudi
confronts
one
of
the
paradigms
of
La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec,
the

notion
that
Greek
sacrificial
ritual
aimed
at
concealing
the
violence
done
to
the
victim.25

21
For
an
example,
see
S.
PEIRCE,
‘Death,
revelry,
and
thysia’,
ClAnt
12
(1993),
p.
219-266.

22
J.-L.
DURAND,
‘Greek
animals:
toward
a
topology
of
edible
bodies’,
p.
87-118,
and
‘Ritual
as
instru-

mentality’,
p.
119-128,
in
Cuisine of sacrifice,
o.c.
(n.
1).

23
See
the
paper
by
Mareile
HAASE,
‘Etruskische
Tieropferdastellungen:
Bild
und
Handlung’.
None
of
the

two
Etruscan
scenes,
which
her
study
concerns,
a
bronze
mirror
and
an
amphora,
are
illustrated,
which

makes
the
argument
difficult
to
follow,
see
ThesCRA
I,
p.
152-153,
no.
127,
for
the
bronze
mirror,
now
in

Florence,
and
ThesCRA
I,
p.
153,
no.
128
for
the
amphora,
now
in
Dresden.
Also
the
Françoise
LABRIQUE’s

contribution
(‘Le
bras
de
Sekhmet’)
would
have
profited
from
more
illustrations.

24
M.
DETIENNE,
‘Culinary
practices
and
the
spirit
of
sacrifice’;
J.-P.
VERNANT,
‘At
man’s
table:
Hesiod’s

foundation
myth
of
sacrifice’,
in
o.c.
(n.
1).

25
Illustrating
GEORGOUDI’s
paper
(Fig.
5)
are
three
photographs
of
a
very
interesting
Campanian
red-

figure
oinochoe
(the
Rainore
vase),
previously
known
only
from
an
early
19th-century
drawing,
see ThesCRA

V,
p.
307-308,
no.
999
(drawing);
cf.
A.D.
TRENDALL,
The red-figured vases of Lucania,
Campania and Sicily,

London
1967,
p.
254,
no.
188;
VAN
STRATEN,
o.c.
(n.
4),
p.
216,
no.
V125.
The
vase
depicts
three
youths

proceeding
to
a
sacrifice,
the
first
one
carrying
a
boar,
the
second
one
a
hammer,
a
bundle
of
spits
and
a

knife,
and
the
third
one
a
metal
tray
for
the
meat
and
wood
for
the
fire.
The
tray
is
central
for
the

understanding
of
the
appearance
of
Athenian
marble
cult
table
tops,
see
D.H.
GILL,
Greek cult tables,
New

York
&
London,
1991
(Harvard dissertations in classics),
p.
83-84
and
fig.
29.

394
Revue
des
Livres

The
hiding
of
the
machaira,
the
sacrificial
knife,
plays
an
important
role
in
this
construct,
but

the
importance
of
this
action
has
surely
been
exaggerated,
as
was
demonstrated
in
1999
in
a

paper
by
Pierre
Bonnechere,
on
which
Georgoudi
builds
part
of
her
discussion.26
Based
on

archaeological
and
iconographical
evidence
Georgoudi
further
challenges
the
notions
of
the

willing
victim
and
the
feelings
of
guilt
surrounding
sacrifice.
At
real
sacrifices,
victims
were

probably
neither
unrestrained
nor
peaceful,
judging
from
the
stone
blocks
with
metal
rings

found
in
sanctuaries
as
well
as
the
reliefs
depicting
animals
being
attached
by
ropes.
The

feelings
of
guilt
associated
with
sacrifice
have
surely
been
exaggerated
by
pressing

Porphyry’s account
of
the
Bouphonia
too
far,
and
it
is
questionable
whether
this
Attic

festival
can
be
considered
as
relevant
for
the
Greek
evidence
in
general.27
Also
Folkert
van

Straten’s
paper
argues
for
a
more
diversified
view
of
thysia
sacrifice
by
underlining
the

different
emphases
conveyed
by
different
kinds
of
evidence,
especially
regarding
the
killing

of
the
victim
and
the
handling
of
the
splanchna
as
a
way
of
strengthening
the
ties,
not
only

between
the
worshippers,
but
also
between
men
and
gods.

But
La cuisine et l’autel
also
offers
a
more
inclusive
approach
to
Greek
sacrifice
by

incorporating
other
kinds
of
ritual
activities
and
types
of
offerings
apart
from
the
thysia

performed
with
an
animal
victim
and
concluded
by
a
meal.
The
study
of
the
ritual
world
of

the
Greeks
certainly
deserves
a
wider
perspective
in
which
thysia
only
constitutes
one
part.

Louise
Bruit
Zaidman
examines
the
role
and
function
offerings
of
vegetables
and
other

foodstuffs
within
the
wider
spectrum
of
sacrificial
ritual
and
relations
between
men
and

gods,
certainly
an
understudied
field
in
Greek
religion.28
She
explores
how
the
paradox
of

the
immortal
gods
being
given
food
of
the
kind
consumed
by
mortals
worked
as
a
means

for
constructing
the
relations
between
gods
and
men
more
precisely.
Of
central
interest
for

the
understanding
of
these
rituals
is
the
interplay
between
burning
offerings
on
the
altar
and

depositing
them
on
a
trapeza,
as
well
as
inviting
the
gods
to
dine
at
a
theoxenia
ceremony,

making
them
partake
of
the
human
food
though
not
eating
together
with
the
worshippers.

In
the
philosophical
discourse,
an
opposition
between
vegetable
and
animal
offerings
is

pronounced,
which
is
less
evident
in
the
actual,
practised
cult.

The
previous
explicit
focus
on
thysia
has
also
led
to
the
neglect
of
a
number
of
other

rituals
within
Greek
cult.
In
a
detailed
contribution,
Renée
Koch
Piettre
(‘Précipitations

sacrificielles
en
Grèce
ancienne’)
investigates
rituals
at
which
the
offerings
were
plunged
into

water
or
thrown
into
an
abyss.
Starting
from
the
question
whether
one
can
sacrifice
by

throwing
something
away,
she
contextualizes
this
action
within
the
Greek
terminology
for

throwing,
discarding
and
libating,
as
well
as
within
the
ritual
language
of
discarding
the

offerings
and
destroying
them.
Hurling
the
offerings
can
be
compared
with
sphagia,
oath-
taking
and
other
offerings
where
the
animal
was
not
eaten.
Still,
to
sacrifice
by
throwing

away
must
be
conceived
as
a
proper
sacrifice,
a
kind
of
thysia,
though
with
connotations
of

gift-giving
in
a
violent
form.

26
P.
BONNECHERE,
‘“La
µάχαιρα
était
dissimulée
dans
le
κανοῦν”
:
quelques
interrogations’,
REA
101

(1999),
p.
21-35.

27
This
point
has
also
been
argued
by
A.
HENRICHS,
‘Dromena
und
Legomena.
Zum
rituellen
Selbstver-

ständnis
der
Griechen’,
in
F.
GRAF
(ed.),
Ansichten griechischer Rituale. Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert,

Castelen bei Basel 15. bis 18. März 1996,
Stuttgart
&
Leipzig,
1998,
p.
58-63.

28
Louise
BRUIT
ZAIDMAN
has
certainly
contributed
more
than
any
other
scholar
in
bringing
out
the

importance
of
offerings
of
food
for
the
gods,
see,
for
example,
L.
BRUIT,
‘Sacrifices
à
Delphes.
Sur
deux

figures
d’Apollon’,
RHR
201
(1984),
p.
339-367;
eadem,
‘Les
dieux
aux
festins
des
mortels:
théoxénies
et

xeniai’,
in
LAURENS, o.c. (n.
16),
p.
13-25;
eadem,
‘The
meal
at
the
Hyakinthia
:
ritual
consumption
and

offering’,
in
O.
MURRAY (ed.),
Sympotica. A symposium on the symposion,
Oxford,
1990,
p.
162-174;
eadem,
Le
commerce des dieux. Eusebeia. Essai sur la piété en Grèce ancienne,
Paris,
2001
(Textes à l’appui).


Revue
des
Livres
395

Disposal
of
unwanted
objects
within
a
ritual
context
is
also
examined
by
Athanassia

Zografou.
The
paper
surveys
both
the
kinds
of
items
eliminated
(e.g.
water
used
for

purification,
clothes
from
the
sick,
but
also
remains
of
sacrifices)
and
the
locations
where

this
was
done.
To
prevent
any
pollution
from
these
items
spreading,
they
were
neutralized

by
consecration,
thus
linking
elimination
and
offering.
The
notion
and
meaning
of

destruction
within
Greek
sacrificial
ritual
is
discussed
by
Jesper
Svenbro
(‘La
thusia
et
le

partage.
Remarques
sur
la
‘destruction’
par
le
feu
dans
le
sacrifice
grec’).
His
starting
point
is

a
critique
of
the
use
of
the
term
‘destruction
sacrifice’
in
my
dissertation
on
the
sacrificial

rituals
of
Greek
hero-cults.29
Svenbro
argues
that
this
term
is
unsuitable,
since
the
burning

of
the
offerings
served
to
transform
and
make
them
accessible
for
the
gods.
All
sacrifices

established
a
kind
of
commensality
with
the
gods,
even
holocausts
where
the
entire
animal
is

burnt,
and
the
burning
at
an
enagismos
or
at
a
thysia.30

The
majority
of
the
contributions
in
the
book
do
not
focus
on
Greek
sacrifice
of
the

Archaic
and
Classical
periods.
Two
papers
deal
with
the
discourse
on
Greek
sacrifices
in

texts
from
the
Imperial
period.
Laurent
Pernot
(‘Le
sacrifice
dans
la
littérature
grecque
de

l’époque
impériale’)
points
to
the
richness
of
the
Imperial
sources
for
the
study
of
Greek

sacrifice
but
also
emphasizes
the
difficulties
in
using
this
evidence.
In
the
novels,

Heliodoros’
Aethiopica,
for
example,
sacrifice
functions
as
an
element
of
decoration
and

atmosphere
rather
than
as
a
reflection
of
contemporary
cult.
Also
Aelius
Aristides
and

Lucian
represent
sacrifice
from
a
literary
point
of
view,
focusing
on
the
extraordinary
cases,

such
as
human
sacrifice,
at
the
cost
of
ordinary
cult,
although
Aristides
falls
back
on
his

personal
experiences.
Porphyry’s
Philosophy from oracles
is
analyzed
by
Stéphane
Toulouse,

arguing
that
it
is
not
an
early
work,
but
must
be
counted
among
the
author’s
later

philosophical
productions.
Of
central
interest
to
Porphyry
is
the
inner
and
intellectual

sacrifice
by
which
man
purifies
and
sanctifies
himself
to
god.
These
papers
bring
out

important
methodological
points
similar
to
those
made
in
the
recent
work
on
evaluating

Pausanias
as
a
source
for
Greek
religion,
both
of
his
own
and
earlier
periods.31
Methodo-
logical
concerns
are
also
addressed
in
Mareile
Haase’s
article,
‘Etruskische
Tieropferdastel-
lungen:
Bild
und
Handlung’.
Haase
questions
the
extent
to
which
Etruscan
iconography
can

be
used
as
evidence
for
practised,
Etruscan
cult,
especially
the
cult
of
Dionysos,
and
argues

that
the
iconography
incorporates
elements
distinctly
referring
to
Greek
rituals.
The

depictions
are
therefore
to
be
seen
as
elements
of
the
Etruscan
discourse
on
Greek
culture

rather
than
as
representations
of
local
ritual
practices.

Three
papers
on
Roman
ritual
focus
on
the
function
and
interpretation
of
dining
in

sanctuaries
and
in
connection
with
sacrifices.
John
Scheid
(‘Manger
avec
les
dieux.
Partage

sacrificiel
et
commensalité
dans
la
Rome
antique’),
explores
the
practicalities
and

interpretation
of
Roman
public
banquets,
which
would
have
involved
large
numbers
of

29
The
printed
version
of
this
work,
which
appeared
in
2002
(see
EKROTH,
o.c.
[n.
3]),
should
preferably

have
been
referred
to
instead
of
the
unpublished
manuscript
from
1999.

30
I
agree
with
Svenbro
that
a
holocaust
is
not
a
‘destruction’
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
gods,
who

actually
received
more
at
these
rituals
(a
point
I
also
made
in
the
dissertation
of
1999,
p.
109,
n.
471,
and
the

printed
version
of
2002,
o.c.
[n.
3],
p.
129,
n.
1),
but
I
want
to
emphasize
that
my
aim
with
using
the
term

‘destruction
sacrifice’
was
to
create
a
useful
category
to
facilitate
the
understanding
of
the
practical
execution

of
the
sacrificial
rituals
of
hero-cults,
not
to
pass
a
theological
judgement
of
the
meaning
of
these
actions.

31
G.
EKROTH,
‘Pausanias
and
the
sacrificial
rituals
of
Greek
hero-cults’,
in
Ancient Greek hero cult,
o.c.

(n.
2),
p.
145-158;
V.
PIRENNE-DELFORGE,
‘Les
rites
sacrificiels
dans
la
Périégèse
de
Pausanias’,
in

D.
KNOEPFLER
&
M.
PIÉRART
(eds.), Éditer, traduire, commenter Pausanias en l’an 2000. Actes du colloque de
Neuchâtel et de Fribourg (18-22 septembre 1998),
Genève,
2001,
p.
109-134;
eadem,
‘Ritual
dynamics
in
Pausanias:

the
Laphria’,
in
E.
STRAVRIANOPOULOU
(ed.),
Ritual communication in the Graeco-Roman world,
Liège,
2006

(Kernos,
suppl.
16),
p.
111-129.

396
Revue
des
Livres

people
in
cities
like
Rome.
Scheid
opposes
the
notion
that
public
banquets
are
to
be

considered
‘secular’
and
separated
from
animal
sacrifice
or
the
ritual
slaughter
to
procure

meat.32
After
re-examining
the
evidence
he
concludes
that
all
slaughter
in
Roman
society

must
have
been
ritual
to
some
degree,
even
when
procuring
salted
meat
for
future

consumption,
and
that
it
could
not
have
been
possible
to
kill
an
animal
without
sharing
it

with
the
gods
in
some
sense.

Jörg
Rüpke’s
contribution
‘Gäste
der
Götter
–
Götter
als
Gäste:
zur
Konstruktion
des

römischen
Opferbanketts’
discusses
the
fact
that
in
Roman
society,
unlike
the
Greek,
a

strong
link
between
animal
sacrifice
to
the
gods
and
banquets
for
men
was
never

pronounced
(though
Rüpke
seems
to
overestimate
the
degree
to
which
the
Greek
gods
were

considered
as
actually
eating
with
the
mortal
worshippers).33
The
unequal
relationship

between
gods
and
men
could
not
be
accommodated
within
the
context
of
a
banquet.
The

gods
would
dine
by
themselves
at
the
lectisternia
while
the
dining
for
humans
was
confined
to

the
conuiuium publicum,
just
as
there
were
strict
social
hierarchies
among
the
groups
of
men

who
were
to
dine
together.
The
practicalities
of
ritual
are
also
addressed
by
Ulrike
Egelhaaf-
Gaiser,
‘Sakrallandschaften
und
Tafelluxus:
Adaptation
und
Naturinszenierung
in
Bankett-
räumen
pompejanischer
Kultgemeinschaften’,
who
discusses
the
architecture
and
decoration

of
dining-rooms
in
sanctuaries
and
private
buildings
in
Pompeii.
Dining
spaces
in
Pompeian

sanctuaries,
even
those
of
a
more
simple
and
rustic
kind,
were
embellished
to
resemble
the

interiors
of
private
houses
and
villas,
a
development
which
can
be
seen
as
a
result
of
an

increased
taste
for
luxury
and
comfort
in
the
local
community.


The
comparisons
between
Greek
and
Hebrew
sacrificial
practices
and
terminology

offered
in
La cuisine et l’autel
are
revealing
as
well
as
fruitful,
especially
in
the
light
of
strong

resemblance
between
Greek
and
Hebrew
sacrificial
practices
and
the
suggestions
that
the

Greek
thysia
may
have
been
influenced
by
Israelite
rituals
or
even
introduced
from
the
Near

East
in
the
Early
Iron
Age.34
A
concrete
comparison
of
the
understanding
of
rituals
in
these

two
cultures
is
presented
by
Gilles
Dorival
(‘L’originalité
de
la
Bible
grecque
des
Septante
en

matière
de
sacrifice’),
investigating
the
terminology
used
by
the
translators
of
the
Septuagint

to
render
the
Hebrew
sacrifices.
A
literal
translation
was
not
made,
as
the
Greek
often
uses
a

greater
number
of
terms
to
render
the
sacrifices
of
the
original
text.
New
terms
were
also

created
to
translate
the
biblical
rituals,
but
it
is
interesting
that
a
number
of
central
Greek

ritual
terms,
such
as
hiereion
and
hieros,
were
not
employed
at
all.


Three
other
papers
deal
with
Israelite
rituals
and
illustrate
further
distinctions
from
the

Greek
evidence
as
to
the
killing,
offering
and
handling
of
the
meat.
Alfred
Marx
(‘Tuer,

donner,
manger
dans
le
culte
sacrificiel
de
l’ancien
Israël’)
argues
that
the
killing
of
the

animal
victim
was
not
considered
part
of
the
actual
sacrifice
at
Hebrew
rituals.
Central
was

instead
the
homage
and
tribute
paid
to
God,
and
the
offerings
were
not
considered
as
gifts,

since
God
could
not
be
given
what
already
belonged
to
him.
The
cooking
and
consumption

of
the
meat
functioned
primarily
as
a
way
to
distinguish
levels
of
commensality
between
























































32
In
particular,
SCHEID
argues
against
the
opinions
expressed
by
M.
KAJAVA,
‘Visceratio’,
Arctos
32

(1998),
p.
109-131.

33
For
a
discussion
of
the
relation
men
and
gods
at
Greek
sacrifices,
see
M.H.
JAMESON,
‘Theoxenia’,
in

Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence,
o.c.
(n.
2),
p.
55-57.

34
For
sacrifices,
see
B.
BERGQUIST,
‘Bronze
Age
sacrificial
koine
in
the
Eastern
Mediterranean?
A
study

of
animal
sacrifice
in
the
ancient
Near
East’,
in
J.
QUAEGEBEUR
(ed.),
Ritual and sacrifice in the ancient Near East:

Proceedings of the International Conference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April
1991,
Leuven,
1993
(Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta,
55),
p.
11-43;
W.
BURKERT,
‘Greek
tragedy
and
sacrificial

ritual’,
GRBS
7
(1966),
p.
102,
n.
34;
idem,
Homo Necans. The anthropology of ancient Greek sacrificial ritual and myth,

Berkeley,
1983,
p.
9-10;
idem,
Greek religion. Archaic and Classical,
London,
1985,
p.
51;
cf.
J.P.
BROWN,
Ancient
Israel and ancient Greece. Religion, politics and culture,
Minneapolis,
2003.


Revue
des
Livres
397

God,
priests
and
the
invited
participants.
Christophe
Batsch
discusses
whether
herem,
a
ritual

found
in
war
contexts
in
ancient
Israel,
is
to
be
considered
as
a
sacrifice.
This
term
is
used

for
two
different
categories,
objects
or
goods
vowed
to
a
divinity
in
a
manner
that
they

cannot
be
taken
back,
and
destruction
of
idolatrous
cities.
Herem
cannot
be
considered
as
a

sacrificial
ritual,
but
still
it
has
to
be
accompanied
by
sacrifice
when
executed
and
actually

recalls
a
votive
offering.
Finally,
the
interpretation
of
legislation
in
the
Torah
concerning
the

slaughter
of
animals
and
the
consumption
of
sacrificial
and
profane
meat
is
explored
by

Francis
Schmidt.
Three
types
of
meat
can
be
distinguished,
each
linked
to
a
particular
type

of
space,
and
by
the
handling
of
the
meat,
a
separation
between
sacred
and
profane
areas

could
be
upheld.

One
of
the
best
sections
of
the
volume
concerns
the
transformations
of
the
notion
of

Greek
and
Roman
sacrifice
and
the
attitudes
to
sacrificial
ritual
within
Christian
culture.

Three
very
interesting,
well-written
and
well-argued
papers
address
these
issues.
The
anti-
pagan
legislation
from
Constantine
to
Theodosius
II
is
discussed
by
Nicole
Belayche
(‘Realia
versus leges ?
Les
sacrifices
de
la
religion
d’État
au
IVe
siècle’).
On
the
basis
of
the
4th-century

laws,
pagan
worship
and
especially
animal
sacrifice
have
often
been
considered
as
having

been
under
attack.
Belayche
convincingly
demonstrates
that,
in
reality,
public
sacrifice
was

not
a
concern
for
the
Imperial
administration
before
the
end
of
the
century
and
that
much

of
the
critique
of
animal
sacrifice
actually
came
from
within
pagan
circles.
Private
divination

by
haruspicy
was
banned
earlier,
since
it
was
thought
to
be
used
for
magical
purposes,
which

might
hurt
the
power
of
the
emperor.
An
illustration
of
the
Christian
concept
of
sacrifice
is

given
by
Joan
Branham
(‘Women
as
objects
of
sacrifice?
An
early
Christian
‘Chancel
of
the

virgins’’).
Starting
from
a
marble
slab
from
a
chancel
screen
in
a
Roman
church
in
North

Africa
she
discusses
how
such
screens
were
used
to
distinguish
different
kinds
of
space,

sacred,
social
and
gendered,
and
thus
to
develop
a
sense
of
hierarchy
in
the
church.
While

widows
were
compared
with
altars,
virgins
were
viewed
as
objects
of
sacrifice,
keeping
their

bodies
pure
as
an
offering
to
God.
As
such
they
were
revered
and
set
apart
within
the

church.
The
third
paper,
by
Cristiano
Grottanelli
(‘Tuer
des
animaux
pour
la
fête
de
Saint

Félix’),
offers
a
sophisticated
analysis
of
how
ritual
slaughter
within
pagan
cult
was
distinct

from
Christian
sanctified
butchery,
focusing
on
Paulinus’
description
of
the
epulum
for
St

Felix
at
Nola,
written
in
AD
406.
To
kill
animals
and
eat
their
meat
in
a
religious
context

cannot
simply
be
explained
as
a
survival
and
continuation
of
old
customs,
as
it
often
has

been,
and
is
to
be
seen
rather
as
a
Christian
interpretation
of
the
traditional
votum.

The
articles
dealing
with
animal
sacrifice
in
ancient
Egypt,
both
in
Pharaonic
and
later

periods,
constitute
the
step
furthest
away
from
the
Greek
evidence.
The
Egyptian
material
is

illuminating
as
to
how
the
meaning
and
use
of
sacrifice
were
fundamentally
different

compared
with
Greek
and
Roman
practices.
Such
distinctions
caution
against
simplistic

comparisons
between
cultures.
Two
papers
deal
with
the
recognition
of
violence
within

Egyptian
animal
sacrifice.
Catherine
Bouanich
(‘Mise
à
mort
rituelle
de
l’animal,
offrande

carnée
dans
le
temple
égyptien’)
demonstrates
that
the
representation
of
a
violent
killing
of

animals,
in
particular
wild
species,
served
as
a
metaphor
for
Pharaoh
slaying
his
enemies

with
force.
The
slaughtering
of
edible
animals
is
hardly
ever
depicted.
The
meat
from
the

victims
was
partly
given
to
the
priests
but
there
seems
to
have
been
no
communal
dining.

The
link
between
animal
victims
and
enemies
is
also
analyzed
by
Françoise
Labrique
on
the

basis
of
the
reliefs
at
the
Ptolemaic
temple
of
Khonsu
at
Karnak.
The
goddess
Sekhmet
is

shown
as
a
lioness
which
with
an
iron
brands
the
animal
victims
shown
as
enemies,
whom

the
king
will
kill
with
the
help
of
the
divinity.
Catherine
Graindorge
offers
a
reinterpretation

of
the
Egyptian
festival
of
the
god
Min.
She
goes
against
the
scholarly
consensus
that
the

white
bull,
led
in
a
procession
at
this
festival,
was
sacrificed
after
being
given
a
sheaf
of

corn.
Graindorge
demonstrates
that
there
is
no
evidence
for
the
animal
being
slaughtered

398
Revue
des
Livres

and
that
the
vegetable
offering
was
presented
to
the
bull,
which
then
came
to
symbolize
the

principle
of
royal
regeneration.

The
Egyptian
evidence
stands
a
little
apart
from
the
rest
of
the
material
covered
in
the

book.
If
a
departure
from
the
hellenocentric
perspective
was
wished
for,
one
wonders
why

Egypt
was
included
and
not
Mesopotamia,
Assyria
and
Anatolia
(especially
the
Hittites),

considering
the
influence
of
these
cultures
on
the
formation
of
Greek
religion.35
Hittite

sacrificial
practices
are
at
present
the
focus
of
intensive
study,
which
will
certainly
be
of

major
interest
for
scholars
of
Greek
religion.36
Also
the
Aegean
Bronze
Age
is
significant
in

this
context,
as
recently
published
osteological
evidence
from
Methana
and
Pylos
has

provided
new
possibilities
for
addressing
the
question
whether
Greek
animal
sacrifice
as
we

know
it
from
the
historical
period,
was
practised
already
in
the
Mycenaean
period.37


La cuisine et l’autel
is
a
significant
and
stimulating
study
which
will
be
useful
to
all
scholars

working
on
sacrifices
in
the
ancient
Mediterranean
cultures.
One
objection
has
to
be
made,

however. Since
one
of
the
aims
of
the
book
was
to
widen
the
focus
to
contextualize
both

Greek
sacrifice
and
scholarship
on
this
topic,
it
is
surprising
that
it
was
not
considered

important
to
include
contemporary
scholarship
outside
the
French-speaking
sphere
to
a

greater
extent.
This
somewhat
indifferent
view
of
non-French
scholarly
activity
is
detected

in
the
references
as
well,
where
a
number
of
new
and
central
works
written
in
English
or

German
are
left
out.
When
discussing
sacrificial
cakes,
Louise
Bruit
makes
no
mention
of

Emily
Kearns’
paper
from
1994,
while
Renée
Koch
Piettre
exclusively
refers
to
scholarship

in
French
on
human
sacrifice,
passing
over
Dennis
Hughes’
volume,
which
actually

preceded
that
of
Pierre
Bonnechere.38
There
is
no
reference
to
the
important
Festschrift
to

Walter
Burkert,
Ansichten griechischer Rituale,
which
was
published
in
1998,
nor
to
Jörg

Gebauer’s
study
of
the
iconography
of
Greek
animal
sacrifice.39
A
Francocentric
attitude
is

also
evidenced
in
many
of
the
English
abstracts
of
the
papers,
which
unfortunately
cannot

have
been
checked
by
a
native
speaker,
since
some
sentences
are
so
grammatically
and

syntactically
flawed
that
they
are
almost
incomprehensible.

Perspectives: Olympian and chthonian or kitchen and altar?

Since
these
two
volumes
to
a
large
extent
cover
different
fields
of
study,
it
might
be
of

little
use
to
make
comparisons.
Incidentally,
one
scholar
was
actually
present
at
both
events,

35
See
W.
BURKERT,
The orientalizing revolution. Near Eastern influence in Greek culture in the early Archaic age

(Revealing
antiquity
5),
Cambridge,
Mass.
&
London,
1992;
M.L.
WEST,
The east face of the Helicon. West Asiatic

elements in Greek poetry and myth,
Oxford,
1997,
esp.
p.
33-59.

36
See
latest
the
work
by
Alice
MOUTON,
‘Anatomie
animale
:
le
festin
carné
des
dieux
d’après
les
textes

hittites
I.
Les
membres
antérieurs’,
Colloquium anatolicum
III,
2004,
p.
67-92;
eadem,
‘Anatomie
animale
:
le

festin
carné
des
dieux
d’après
les
textes
hittites
II.
Les
membres
postérieurs
et
d’autres
parties
anatomiques’,

Colloquium anatolicum
IV,
2005,
p.
139-154;
eadem,
‘Le
porc
dans
les
textes
religieux
hittites’,
in
B.
LION
&

C.
MICHEL
(eds.),
De la domestication au tabou : le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien,
Paris,
2006
(Travaux de la
Maison René-Ginouvès,
1),
p.
255-265,
with
accompanying
bibliographies.


37
Y.
HAMILAKIS
&
E.
KONSOLAKI,
‘Pigs
for
the
gods:
burnt
animal
sacrifices
as
embodied
rituals
at

Mycenaean
sanctuaries’,
OJA
23
(2004),
p.
135-151;
V.
ISAAKIDOU
et al.,
‘Burnt
animal
sacrifice
at
the

Mycenaean
‘Palace
of
Nestor’,
Pylos’,
Antiquity
76
(2002),
p.
86-92;
P.
HALSTEAD
&
V.
ISAAKIDOU,
‘Faunal

evidence
for
feasting:
burnt
offerings
from
the
Palace
of
Nestor
at
Pylos’,
in
P.
HALSTEAD
&
J.C.
BARRETT

(eds.),
Food, cuisine and society in prehistoric Greece,
Oxford,
2004
(Sheffield studies in Aegean archaeology,
5),
p.
136-
154.
Cf.
R.
HÄGG,
‘Ritual
in
Mycenaean
Greece’,
in
Ansichten griechischer Rituale, o.c.
(n.
27),
p.
99-113.

38
E.
KEARNS,
‘Cakes
in
Greek
sacrifice
regulations’,
in
Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence,

o.c. (n.
2),
p.
65-70;
D.D.
HUGHES,
Human sacrifice in ancient Greece,
London
&
New
York,
1991.

39
Ansichten griechischer Rituale,
o.c.
(n.
27);
J.
GEBAUER,
Pompe und Thysia. Attische Tieropferdarstellungen auf

schwarz- und rotfigurigen Vasen,
Münster,
2002
(Eikon,
7).


Revue
des
Livres
399

Folkert
van
Straten.
However,
apart
from
distinctions
as
to
actual
factual
matter,
the
37

papers
show
that
the
study
of
ancient
ritual
and
sacrifice
can
still
basically
be
perceived
as

divided
into
two
‘schools’,
one
German-Anglophone
and
one
Francophone,
a
division

which
is
visible
in
the
theoretical
and
methodological
approach
as
well
as
in
the
attitudes
to

scholarship
in
a
wider,
international
perspective.
Unfortunately
the
books
make
few

attempts
to
bridge
over
this
divide.


The
differences
in
methodological
and
theoretical
approach
can
be
illustrated
by
two

papers,
one
in
each
volume,
which
deal
with
the
same
topic,
the
act
of
sacrificing
offerings

by
throwing
them
into
water.
Noel
Robertson
interprets
this
ritual
as
very
old,
originally

working
as
a
kind
of
sympathetic
magic
and
gradually
entering
the
Greek
system
to
become

assimilated
to
other
types
of
rituals
within
the
Olympian
and
chthonian
structure,
that
is,
an

evolutionary
approach
to
the
issue.
Renée
Koch
Piettre,
on
the
other
hand,
firmly
focuses

on
the
Greek
evidence
of
the
historical
period,
especially
from
a
semantic
point
of
view
by

analysing
in
great
detail
the
terminology
of
throwing
and
discarding
and
by
contextualizing

the
significance
and
many
possible
meanings
of
such
actions.

The
most
striking
difference,
however,
is
that
the
Olympian-chthonian
issue,
being
the

focus
of
the
Göteborg
seminar,
is
all
but
absent
in
La cuisine et l’autel
(briefly
mentioned
on

p.
32,
46
and
85
and
with
only
one
reference
in
the
index,
to
p.
32).
A
topic
worthy
of
major

investigation
and
discussion
among
one
group
of
scholars
appears
to
be
more
or
less
of
a

non-issue
for
another
scholarly
community.
This
has
historical
reasons
of
course.
The

importance
of
the
Olympian-chthonian
model
has
always
been
fundamental
in
German
and

British
scholarship
(and
still
is)
while
French
work
on
sacrificial
ritual
has
focused
on

aspects
where
such
a
model
cannot
be
traced
or
is
of
little
importance.
It
is
interesting
to

note
that
Claude
Calame,
a
scholar
who
belongs
to
the
‘French’
paradigm,
in
his
contribu-
tion
to
the
Olympian and chthonian
volume
actually
does
not
address
the
central
issue
in
spite

of
focusing
on
Herakles,
a
deity
often
evoked
as
a
prime
expression
of
the
Olympian
and

chthonian
facets
of
Greek
religion.
It
would
be
interesting
to
further
explore
the
history
of

scholarship
of
ancient
sacrifice
with
attention
paid
to
distinctions
in
theoretical
approaches

in
relation
to
the
nationality
and
background
of
the
scholars
involved.40


Greek sacrificial ritual, Olympian and chthonian
and
La cuisine et l’autel
illustrate
clearly
that
in

spite
of
the
work
done
on
ancient
sacrifice
this
is
a
field
that
will
not
be
exhausted
for
a
long

time
to
come.
By
evaluating
and
discussing
old
paradigms,
both
volumes
open
up
a
plethora

of
new
issues
and
venues,
for
example,
the
need
to
move
away
from
primarily
sacrificial

ritual
to
include
also
the
role
and
meaning
of
the
divine
party,
the
possibilities
offered
by

animal
bones
and
recent
discoveries
such
as
the
Selinous
lex sacra,41 and
the
huge
and

interesting
work
that
is
still
to
be
done
on
comparisons
between
different
cultures
and

periods.
The
inclusion
and
mixture
of
different
kinds
of
evidence
is
to
be
desired,
as
is
the

inclusion
and
mixture
of
scholars
of
different
perspectives,
traditions
and
origins.



University
of
Stockholm

E-mail: Gunnel.Ekroth@antiken.su.se

40
See,
for
example,
W.
BURKERT,
Greek religion,
o.c.
(n.
34),
p.
4
and
p.
217
(who
indeed
does
not
fully

endorse
the
Olympian/chthonian
paradigm),
critizising
the
French
structuralism
as
ahistorical
and
concerned

with
formal
models,
while
J.-P.
VERNANT,
Mortals and immortals. Collected essays,
Princeton,
1991,
p.
279,

questions
the
validity
of
Burkert
and
Karl
Meuli
in
explaining
and
comparing
sacrifices
‘with
what
can
be
but

dimly
perceived
in
the
hunting
rituals
of
Palaeolithic
times’.

41
The
importance
of
this
inscription
for
our
understanding
of
Greek
sacrificial
ritual
can
hardly
be

exaggerated,
see
M.H.
JAMESON,
D.R.
JORDAN
&
R.D.
KOTANSKY,
A lex
sacra from Selinous,
Durham,
1993

(GRBM,
11);
cf.
CLINTON,
l.c.
(n.
14),
p.
159-179;
for
recent
commentaries
on
the
text,
see
also
E.
LUPU,

Greek sacred law. A collection of new documents (NGSL),
Leiden,
2005
(RGRW,
152),
p.
359-387,
no.
27.